get_drawing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait — that files may be authenticated references rather than embedded bytes — which affects how the caller handles the result. But it says nothing about read-only safety, missing-drawing behavior, or payload size/cost, leaving meaningful gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is terse but earns its place by warning about the reference-vs-bytes return shape.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full load, and it only partially does. It covers the return-shape caveat but omits parameter usage, error/not-found behavior, and how the returned 'scene and version' relate to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one required parameter, drawingId, with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema adds no semantics. The description never mentions the parameter at all — not its format, whether it must come from list_drawings/select_drawing, or what an invalid id does — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get full scene and version') and the word 'full' implicitly contrasts with the sibling get_drawing_summary, which returns a summary. However, 'scene' is domain jargon that is never unpacked, so the exact payload is left partly to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_drawing_summary, get_selected_drawing, or inspect_drawing_element, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. does the drawing need to be selected first?). The description only says what comes back, not when to call it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.